Canberra’s planning, including dual-occupancy rules, has come under fire from the convenor of the Prime Minister’s urban design task force.
John Mant was in Canberra to deliver the Institute of Landscape Architects Biennial public lecture.
In the lecture and in an interview at the weekend he said planning in Canberra was based more on property boundary lines than sound urban-design policies. Planners were saying that provided your building was set back from the boundary a given distance you could build what you liked. This took little or no account of neighbours, public spaces, orientation, aspect and other local conditions.
“”It is administratively convenient, but a poor way to create a good urban environment,” he said. “”Canberra could have done better. It is a poor way to get a good urban environment with one dwelling per block and much worse with two or more.”
The dual-occupancy policy might have the right aim higher density but it was going about it the wrong way.
“”There is a need for more sensitive controls and codes,” he said. “”They need to relate to the whole area. The higher density has to be done in the best possible way. It requires more discretion and judgment and more mediation with neighbours.”
Mr Mant recognised that this would cost more and could not be done easily, but it was an investment.
“”Successive families might live in these places for 70 years or more,” he said. “”And there is no need for them to live in a place that is dark and cold or where their privacy is invaded if the places are well-designed. You need people skilled in design and in mediation and control, but it is worth spending the dollars to get it right.”
Mr Mant’s comments come as the ACT Governmnent has launched two planning inquiries. One is a short-term inquiry headed by Bob Landsdown into dual-occupancy and the other is longer term into broader elements of the Territory Plan. The Assembly’s Planning, Development and Infrastructure committee, chaired by Wayen Berry, is also loking at the Territory Plan.
The plan and dual occupancy have come under fire from community groups who argue they do not take enough account of existing residents, were often badly designed and gave more weight to developers’ wishes than high-quality living.
Mr Mant made it clear that his views were personal. The Prime Minister’s task force is to report in the next month or so. Mr Keating has taken a active interest in urban recently, notably promoting the demolition of the Cahill Expressway in Sydney.
In the lecture Mr Mant said, “”Canberra is very much a surveyor-designed city . . . The vast majority of residential development, that is, the detached house, was subject to the worst type of control,” he said. “”The block boundary, the least important factor in the design equation, was the first element to be set in law. Then the house was located on the block by means of rigid set-backs from boundaries, regardless of the orientation, the intentions of the neighbours, the slope, the vegetation or the needs of the owner.”
The system was promoted as what the market wanted, but in fact it was cheap to administer, because it required virtually no discretion. It could be handled by a couple of technical officers. WHen people wanted to do something different, such as an experiment in Cook-Aranda they were met with bureaucratic obstacles.
“”When I look around Canberra today I see a place which is the sum total of the minimum standards of a number of diligent standard keepers,” he said. “”Despite very many attempts to do something different the detail on the ground generally looks the same.”
Belconnen Town Centre looked nothing like the planned concept which was tight and urban “”rather than the disastrous non-place it is today”. There was no multi-discipline team. There was no marketing expert who could have ensured the architectural concept was viable.
Canberra’s land system mean that the NCDC did the design while the depatment managed the land tenure. The NCDC was funded by grants rather than land revenue. The land cost nothing. So it was easy for the NCDC to leave blank bits for later unspecified use and the transport option was to put surface car parks on vacant land around buildings and allow unlimited access for cars. In Canberra it was necessary to travel by car. In contrast, Adelaide had reinforced land values in the CBD. As a result you could walk to virtually everything.
Mr Mant called for an organisational change that concentrated on outcomes and a move to an integrated, multi-disciplinary organisational structure.